Disclosure Day - SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion thread

[Jay 46,840]

At least 3 JWFanners have seen the film now and at least 3 others are seeing it very soon, so here's a thread to discuss the whole film without dancing around spoilers.

 

 

 

If you don't want to be spoiled, stay out of the thread until seeing it!  And don't forget to turn your "Unread Content" view to "Condensed" instead of "Expanded"!

 

 

 

 

Last chance to turn back!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bespin Copilot 10,901]

Just checking there was no hidden text.

 

[LB Makes Stuff 547]

I shall now block the forums from being able to be searched until Friday night, after I've seen the film. The urge to check some pages will be too strong if I don't. Hope everyone enjoys the movie.

[TheUlyssesian 2,768]

The listen theme is played for the 3 "animal" encounters.

 

 When Emily Blunt sees the cardinal.

 

 When Connor and Hewson see the stags. 

 

When Emily Blunt & Connor see the fox.

 

But i think for the scene of young emily blunt seeing the stag, it isn't played.

 

--

 

Score highlight when Blunt breaks O connor out by tricking each FBI agent.

[Arnaud2 120]

Thanks for the new thread, my opinion being negative, I’ll still wait a bit before discussing the film in detail. 

[tomsmoviemadness 5,031]

I just saw the film. I'm gonna have to let it sink in for a while. I thought it was fantastic, but something in the last 40 minutes really hit me and I kinda need to let it rest and sit for a while before I can make any sense of it.

 

But I thought it was a wonderful film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Just finished it. I thought it was wonderful. 

 

Hopeful and human a way really only Spielberg can be.

 

Ill need to let this sink in a bit before i join the discussion and.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Ruminations.

 

This obviously isn't a sequel to Close Encounters as some rumours claimed. Its a much a sequel to CEO3K as E.T. is.

Spielberg does refer to his 1977 film though. I think i saw Devils Tower on one of the many video screens. And one bit of the disclosed footage has people who were previously abducted return in a way similar to Close Encounters. The aliens also look similar. 

 

I liked little touches like the difficulty Margaret has in destroying her phone. Because her boyfriend keeps missing when he tries to drive over it.

 

Spielberg's opening shot!

[PrayodiBA 1,105]

Just saw it.

Contrary to most people where they say the last act is the best part,

I actually think the build up in the first,  middle act, and up before finale is actually the good part. Very Spielberg-ian.

 

The finale, the ‘disclosure’ part, feels too corny and cringe for me. I don’t know why. It also feels half-hearted.

If Spielberg spend more time to make all the alien footages more real and “disturbing” , instead of obvious CGI footage, then I think it will create a different impact entirely ( remember the Brazillian alien footage in Signs?). It will also play with audiences perception to think whether those footages “truly real or not”.

 

And then culminated with that old alien scene, the CGI truly took all the impact away, very unfortunate.

 

But the very Spielberg-y staging, camera works (in particular the camera works in the motel scene and the car chase with the knife), that “over exposed” lights!, still made me smile all the way.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

The ending is PURE Spielberg. Its essentially a movie about empathy.

And I didn't mind the CGI.

 

 

 

 

[tomsmoviemadness 5,031]

I thought the Disclosure Day itself was very impactful. It wasn't some grand shock and awe and horror.

 

I especially loved the reaction of the actress who did the news and all the shots of people in traffic etc watching what was released.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

All the world. Watching a screen in unison.

 

That is how we collectively experience major events now.

[PrayodiBA 1,105]

The people looking at the phone and TV is actually the cringiest part of the whole finale. It feels so unnatural. Yes people look at the phone all the time, but they don’t look like that (like the moment when we see the screen they are watching on phone, which is the news on full screen, not an X tweet, or Instagram reel). But this “cringe” moment is actually Spielberg thing anyway, so i can pass that.

 

Luckily, it was intercut with the scenes inside the NBC control room, which is intriguing. Like it was business as usual for them. When one of the controller shout “is this Ai?”, i kinda imagine other controllers would say “it’s just bad CGI” 😉

 

Like i said, the most interesting thing is actually the build up; the philosophical and religious question regarding alien. As i watch this in a country dubbed as the most religious country in the world, it’s quite fascinating taking a glimpse of the silence reaction inside my theatre during those various moments.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

25 minutes ago, PrayodiBA said:

The people looking at the phone and TV is actually the cringiest part of the whole finale. It feels so unnatural. Yes people look at the phone all the time, but they don’t look like that

 

Its the modern equivalent of people watching world events unfold on live TV. (Apollo 13, ID4 etc...etc.)

 

The car/train sequence was really good.

[crocodile 9,818]

Can't say it resonated with me much. It's something that would have played well in the 90s, and before. Today, it feels bit embarrassing. I wasn't bored but the concept itself didn't really interest me. It felt like I was being lectured and it didn't really teach much. Felt like a Shyamalan movie. I hope it does appeal to others but this is clearly not for me.

 

The music was also very 1990s, but in a good way. Haven't heard anything from it before (other than accidentally playing the opening 3-4 notes on Instagram). Made me think of Oliver Stone trilogy, especially JFK. Even if nothing that preceded made me feel much, as soon as the end credits started I couldn't just walk away. Johnny did good, even if he gets sometimes buried in the mix. It's a subtle work, especially in earlier scenes, but I liked all of it in the film. It should make a really nicely rounded album.

 

Karol

[Marian Schedenig 11,892]

It was a… weird film. And not in an intentional, or successful way. Someone compared it to Ready Player One before, and I felt that - it seemed like a rough first draft of a kids movie that someone hastily rewrote to add a "serious adult" layer and that strenuously tried to present itself as serious and adult, but only one some levels. Spielberg's tendency for excessive comic relief played a part in that, and generally the film seems to be a collection of bits and pieces that never really come together or resonate with each other. I felt Karol's Shyamalan vibe, too.

 

For long stretches, it seems like it could amount to something, even if it never fully managed to hook me. Yes, Blunt is very good, though the primary cast highlight for me was Colin Firth, in what to me seemed a rather untypical role for him. The film starts its three main story strands one by one, and especially the Josh O'Connor part seems quite intriguing as you have to figure out what it's all about. Williams's score makes a strong (if subdued) entrance with its first cue and keeps holding up the narrative tension throughout. But the film is too inconsistent, almost schizophrenic. It presents a series of puzzles (hence the Shyamalan relation) and derives much of its narrative propulsion from it - but then goes out of its way to play down any relevance of its brainy aspects and tries to instead go for an emotion first approach. In the end it falls apart logically (even before you start analysing it after it's over and find more and more loose ends), and doesn't earn its intended emotional payoff - and, failing to do that, instead drove up my cynical side, which it's entirely unprepared to withstand. The weird Christian subplot also didn't gel with me at all - and at the same time didn't have enough weight to lead anywhere. The characters, though well acted, aren't characters at all, but just plot drivers - Colin Firth going full Wotan at the end and just sitting down resignedly to watch things play out (Chen might love this) could probably have made for a nice arc, if there had been any serious arc to his character, or if the plot still had any logical coherence at that point.

 

The thing is… the score does provide a lot of support. And the subdued finale really works. On a narrative level, the film had pretty much lost me at that point, and on a character level as well, triggering my cynicism instead. But somehow the disclosure sequence still managed to trigger my emotions. Not on a level that reconciled me with the film, but on a separate plane. Part of that is due to the music, and part of it probably due to Spielberg still knowing how to deliver a sequence like that - even though all the stagey Truman Show reaction shots kept triggering me. The actor playing the lost for words newscaster also made an impact (in what could very well have been a really lame role had she not pulled it off so well).

 

The cinematography blends Kaminski's typical bleak/oversatured to (sometimes) the point of ugliness (I don't always find it ugly, and don't always find the criticism it gets warranted, but this was probably closer to Indy 4 ugliness - though not have as excessively - than some of their better collaborations) with some really nice reflection shots (especially in the early parts) and dynamic long takes. Someone mentioned Children of Men, and the buildup to the car chase reminded me very much of that.

 

Someone else said the film was rather complicated and moved so quickly on so many levels that it was hard to follow, but I didn't find that at all. It didn't seem complex at all, and except for things that were deliberately left unclear until later in the film, it never seemed complex or complicated, or hard to follow.

 

Ultimately, I found the film an incoherent affair that had some aspects I liked but overall didn't sit well with me. And while I guess I'll watch it again at some point, to re-evaluate the score in the film once I'm familiar with it on album, and for some of the acting performances, i rather expect it to be even less successful on repeated viewings.

[Tom 6,988]

I have not seen it yet, but the negative-type comments seem to hover around Koepp's ability to put together a coherent, meaningful script.  Is that a fair read?  

[Arnaud2 120]

You really shouldn’t be here if you haven’t seen the film. Some people genuinely like it, I’m not one of them but you ought to give yourself a chance.

 

David Koepp is one of the writers credited on Indy 5…

[Tom 6,988]

Koepp was my biggest concern from day 1.  I find him vapid, but arrogant and unreflective enough to think that he is meaningfully engaging big ideas.

 

 

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 8,492]

1 hour ago, Arnaud2 said:

You really shouldn’t be here if you haven’t seen the film. 

 

Some of us aren't freaked out by "spoilers".

[Stark 1,041]

for my and friends' knowledge, what's the christian subplot 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Its less a subplot that a characters point of view really.

 

Will civilization collapse if they find out they're not alone in the universe?

 

There's a very helpful Catholic nun who tells us that won't be the case.

 

Its not the theological battle from Contact, but certain strongly religious people may find it upsetting? Who knows in this day and age.

[Nick1Ø66 8,492]

27 minutes ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

Will civilization collapse if they find out they're not alone in the universe?

 

I've always thought this was a question that's been made out of be more complicated than it needs to be. Carl Sagan, an atheist, made a big deal out of it, but I don't see why the existence of E.T.'s should necessarily contradict any of the world's three major religions. Certainly Christianity holds the most complexity in this regard, but I think it's highly reconcilable. 

 

 

[crocodile 9,818]

28 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

I've always thought this was a question that's been made out of be more complicated than it needs to be. Carl Sagan, an atheist, made a big deal out of it, but I don't see why the existence of E.T.'s should necessarily contradict any of the world's three major religions. Certainly Christianity holds the most complexity in this regard, but I think it's highly reconcilable. 

 

 

And the film makes a point where the nun reveals that the bible text only refers to this planet, not the universe. It's a bit of a Dan Brown type of "epiphany", and very silly at that. 

 

I don't find that dilemma interesting at all. Like Joseph Campbell aptly pointed out all these years ago, people often confuse "symbols" for "signs". 

 

Karol

[Tom Guernsey 3,911]

My main issue was that it has a mystery box plot which inevitably turned out to be less mysterious than expected. I kinda figured it would be about hiding the existence of extra terrestrial life based on the trailers and other bits and pieces, but also assumed that there would be more to it than that. But there wasn’t really. It was another variation on the “how would we react to the existence of aliens” but I feel like we’ve exhausted most of those by now. Star Trek First Contact was more novel in that regard.

 

While there were additional elements - the vaguely defined crystal devices, the animals, the abilities of the two leads, the ability to appear somewhere else and control someone (again vaguely defined) - they didn’t quite pull together meaningfully for me. It also seemed odd that all this powerful tech apparently did nothing for the aliens themselves. ET was left behind and the CE3K aliens could look after themselves but why did the DD aliens only ever manage to crash (seemingly several times) and either die or be captured?! One crash would be understandable, but surely they would be otherwise competent galactic explorers. Apparently not. If the crew of the Enterprise were that incompetent they’d all be demoted.

 

I’m probably someone who thinks too much about plot logic in film and tv but can overlook it if I felt something and on that level I didn’t especially connect emotionally beyond the tension of the superbly staged chases. The acting was uniformly excellent and the music was inevitably decent if broadly confined to the background and I’m sure any of the four composers JW suggested could have done something equally as good. My other half liked it a lot more than I did. Probably need to watch it again. 

[crocodile 9,818]

Yeah, those kinds of theological/moral debacles work extremely well in a more whimsical/wondrous environment like Star Trek. It needs to be more playful and less literal to engage with "big" concepts like this. In "real world", it always ends up somewhat cheesy and unconvincing.

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Star Trek is neither whimsical nor particularly wondrous though.

 

You require a more distant....sci fi setting for your sci fi ideas?

[Marian Schedenig 11,892]

26 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

My main issue was that it has a mystery box plot which inevitably turned out to be less mysterious than expected. I kinda figured it would be about hiding the existence of extra terrestrial life based on the trailers and other bits and pieces, but also assumed that there would be more to it than that. But there wasn’t really. It was another variation on the “how would we react to the existence of aliens” but I feel like we’ve exhausted most of those by now. Star Trek First Contact was more novel in that regard.

 

While there were additional elements - the vaguely defined crystal devices, the animals, the abilities of the two leads, the ability to appear somewhere else and control someone (again vaguely defined) - they didn’t quite pull together meaningfully for me.

 

That's what I meant by it being a puzzle based film that tries to disregard all puzzles. It's extremely patchworky and keeps bringing up aspects that's ultimately don't matter than don't play together at all.

 

26 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

and the music was inevitably decent if broadly confined to the background and I’m sure any of the four composers JW suggested could have done something equally as good.

 

I thought the music really contributed a lot, and in a way that I don't really see anyone other than Williams could have done.

 

20 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Yeah, those kinds of theological/moral debacles work extremely well in a more whimsical/wondrous environment like Star Trek. It needs to be more playful and less literal to engage with "big" concepts like this. In "real world", it always ends up somewhat cheesy and unconvincing.

 

I think it worked well in Contact (where it was of course one of the central topics). Here it has several problems: It's presented (like several other aspects) as if it were a core issue, but it ultimately doesn't matter at all - neither for the film's "message", nor (except briefly) for the character motivations. And I have a serious issue with the ways it is introduced/presented (in the dialogue): As if every human on this planet had been brought up in a Christian way, and as if that religion is without question integral, important, and relevant for each and everyone, with the only difference being how each person interprets it. And nobody seems to question that premise.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Its a chase film rather than a puzzle box film, imo. Rather like Close Encounters.

[Marian Schedenig 11,892]

7 hours ago, Tom said:

I have not seen it yet, but the negative-type comments seem to hover around Koepp's ability to put together a coherent, meaningful script.  Is that a fair read?  

 

From what I understand, it's the forty-somethingth revision of a Koepp script that's based on a story by Spielberg himself. But it's patchworky and inconsistent at its core, so I wouldn't necessarily blame just Koepp, or Koepp specifically for it. And the way it's directed doesn't suggest to me that Spielberg tried to make the best out of a poor script, but rather that he fully embraced the script he had and actively incorporated all its flaws into the film as a whole.

 

6 minutes ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

Its a chase film rather than a puzzle box film, imo. Rather like Close Encounters.

 

Except that CE3K works because it's not *built* on puzzle boxes. (And because the finale fully works for me on an emotional level and doesn't invite even a glimmer of cynicism)

 

Also, meeting the alien at the end of DD… Why? Aside from the fact, that it seems to introduce even more plot holes than the film has already accumulated by that point, it seems both over the top and utterly pointless? I don't need the "inside" segment in CE3K, but I never much objected to it, because it doesn't take away anything for me - it's still abstract enough (almost in a 2001:ASO-style visuals way), and I never consciously thought about what it would look like inside on my own (i.e. there were no illusions to destroy for me). But having the full disclosure sequence, that *somehow* despite all odds managed to form some kind of bond with me despite my problems with the film itself, and *then* wheeling in the alien - what's that supposed to accomplish? Aside from allowing you to let the film end on a cheap pseudo cliffhanger (that somehow strikes me as a non-visual equivalent to the freeze frame ending of HP:POA)?

[Nick1Ø66 8,492]

58 minutes ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

Star Trek is neither whimsical

58 minutes ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

nor particularly wondrous.

 

 

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

1. Didn't like the movie.

 

2. X grifters really overhyped this shit, and their nutty UFO followers will probably feel alienated that it doesn't play how they imagined. It's all fairy tale logic in this flick, as expected, but it's also all over the place and can't seem to work out what it's trying to be – looking at you, Unlucky Bastard!

 

3. Funnily it comes off pretty neutral on the religious/theological front, but it doesn't really go anywhere after the President from Homeland has a phone chat to Bono's daughter, which makes it feel shoehorned and hamfisted just to provoke some yak yak yak on social media. Which makes the whole online hissy fit about Spielberg being "anti-Christian" completely stupid.

 

4. Wait for the video.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

 

31 minutes ago, Jill Sandwich said:

Which makes the whole online hissy fit about Spielberg being "anti-Christian" completely stupid.

 

If anything its the reverse. But MAGA nutcases who believe empathy is a weakness will possibly see it otherwise.

For regular Christians there is a wise old nun telling them its okay.

 

There's nothing controversial about this film.

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

What's this got to do with MAGA? This is like some obsession with you guys. I'm talking about hardcore Christians on social media overreacting to the film's marketing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Except that CE3K works because it's not *built* on puzzle boxes.

 

What are the puzzle boxes?

 

The glow sticks of destiny we see used? Its explained pretty well what they are and how they work?

 

The connection between Margaret and Daniel?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Jill Sandwich said:

What's this got to do with MAGA? This is like some obsession with you guys. I'm talking about hardcore Christians on social media overreacting to the film's marketing.

 

They're the same type of people. They will hate it, but Spielberg doesn't make movies for them anyway.

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

How did Colin Firth figure out how to use the alien sticks to make a psychic link with someone when he looks at their picture on a computer monitor?

 

2 minutes ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

They're the same type of people. They will hate it, but Spielberg doesn't make movies for them anyway.

 

Uh wat

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

5 minutes ago, Jill Sandwich said:

How did Colin Firth figure out how to use the alien sticks to make a psychic link with someone when he looks at their picture on a computer monitor?

 

 

He's a scientist who's been on the project for decades?

 

Why did they need to go to an Kansas affiliate network to disclose everything? Couldn't they have dumped it all on Reddit?

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

Oh come on. Who the hell holds the stick and goes "if I look at someone's picture long enough, I can possess them"? Gimme a break.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Perhaps the Aliens taught it to them?

 

 

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

Only Prince Charles seemed to understand the language.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Why didn't the train stop once it was dragging a car with it?

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

They taught us at the railway that the train always wins.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

Health and safety though. 

 

5 minutes ago, Jill Sandwich said:

Only Prince Charles seemed to understand the language.

 

Why didn't Prince Charles order the BBC to broadcast the secret government files?

[Armenian Money Train 11,254]

Stupidest bit for me was when I think it was Emily Blunt who announced that these aliens had been "mistreated" like it was some animal welfare exposé.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

You probably wouldn't mind chucking some alien rib on the Barby?

 

 

[Arnaud2 120]

To be honest, it’s Spielberg’s worst film. (Before that I thought it was the Lost World). It’s lazy, silly and makes no sense at all. Poorly conceived and poorly written. It doesn’t address any of the issues it tries to raise. It doesn’t even try to be universal (pun intended), why are catholic nuns the only religious group involved? Where is the rest of the world? Have aliens landed only in the US?

 

It starts too late and ends too early. We don’t feel anything. In the end, we are shown bad CGI on tv screens and then we are treated to people’s fake reactions to this poor imagery. We’re not engaged to react to something ourselves but to witness other people as they’re looking at the same fake footage. This choice is mind bogglingly sterile and stupid. Imagine the end of CE3K done the same way!

 

And how the hell could Spielberg chose to stick to the poor Roswell depiction of aliens? The film was dead in the water the moment we saw that. It screams poor X-Files episode. When Spielberg made E.T. he was a trend setter, now he accepts to be only a follower.

 

He is endangering his career and legacy with this one. Unless he’s saved by the box office, this could be the end.

How could his producers and the studio let him waste his time on this? In a way, it commits the worst sin: it’s insignificant.
 

Everybody takes the money, congratulates each other and hopes for the best. Hollywood is the rabbit in the car headlights. Their old reflexes will kill them and they have no clue what to do next. At this point it’s a problem of collective intelligence, you can bet AI will get into this like a hot knife into butter.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

4 minutes ago, Arnaud2 said:

And how the hell could Spielberg chose to stick to the poor Roswell depiction of aliens?

 

Thats just what Spielberg Aliens look like. From Close Encounters to Crystal Skull. 

 

[Arnaud2 120]

On 8/6/2026 at 11:27 PM, Jay said:

At least 3 JWFanners have seen the film now and at least 3 others are seeing it very soon, so here's a thread to discuss the whole film without dancing around spoilers.

 

 

 

If you don't want to be spoiled, stay out of the thread until seeing it!  And don't forget to turn your "Unread Content" view to "Condensed" instead of "Expanded"!

 

 

 

 

Last chance to turn back!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Jay, does what we write here show up on Google searches? It’d be great if it didn’t, I feel like shooting at an ambulance. I do hope the film is a success. Plenty of worst films have been hits. It’s just we expect the best from Spielberg. Still he shouldn’t be punished for our high expectations.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,744]

5 minutes ago, Arnaud2 said:

why are catholic nuns the only religious group involved? Where is the rest of the world? Have aliens landed only in the US?

 

Its an American movie? Christianity is the biggest American religion. Also there's genuinely only one Catholic nun in the film. The other a former Novice.

[Arnaud2 120]

2 minutes ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

 

Thats just what Spielberg Aliens look like. From Close Encounters to Crystal Skull. 

 

I beg to differ, he chose the poorest version established by Roswell and brought nothing new. 

1 minute ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

 

Its an American movie? Christianity is the biggest American religion. Also there's genuinely only one Catholic nun in the film. The other a former Novice.

Catholics are a minority in the US. But whichever one religion he chose to involve, it’s a mistake when he’s dealing with this topic and releasing the film everywhere in the world. It’s thinking small.